On 19 November 2015 at 14:47, Jaime Casanova <jaime.casan...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 19 November 2015 at 14:18, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Jeff Janes wrote: >>> > I've written a function which allows users to clean up the pending list. >>> > It takes the index name and returns the number of pending list pages >>> > deleted. >>> >>> I just noticed that your patch uses AccessShareLock on the index. Is >>> that okay? I would have assumed that you'd need ShareUpdateExclusive >>> (same as vacuum uses), but I don't really know. Was that a carefully >>> thought-out choice? >> >> After reading gitPendingCleanup it becomes clear that there's no need >> for a stronger lock than what you've chosen. Jaime Casanova just >> pointed this out to me. >> > > But it should do some checks, no? > - only superusers? > - what i received as parameter is a GIN index? >
I just notice this: + ginInsertCleanup(&ginstate, true, &stats); ginInsertCleanup() now has four parameters, so you should update the call -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
